The Government In Charge of Our Entire Health-Care System?

okie, have you ever worked for an insurance company?

~~~

I've been working with and for insurers for 25 years now. It's about the money. That's it. That's all.

McGentrix wrote:

I often wonder why so many doctors choose to go into specialty practices that emphasize elective surgery. You know plastic surgery, and the like.

Very few, if any insurance companies will cover elective surgery, yet those doctors do a nice, healthy practice. Is it because they care about the patients?

You said it: it's elective. If you don't have the money, you don't get plastic surgery. If you don't have the money to buy a car, you don't get a car.

But chances are you'll still need health care at one point in your life - even if you can't afford it.

McGentrix wrote:

I also wonder if people like ebrown want health insurance to not only be socialized, but mandatory?

What, exactly, do you mean by "socialized health insurance?" Is that the same as universal health care?

McGentrix wrote:

Will people HAVE to sign up for health insurance whether they want it or not? Will rich people be stuck paying more taxes to make up for the poor who can not afford to be taxed to pay for nationalized health insurance?

Well, you're already facing that dilemma. People can go to the emergency room, without having paid into health insurance. The resulting costs will be charged to other people who do pay into health insurance.

There are two solutions to this problem:

- don't treat people who don't have health insurance/don't pay for treatment at all
- make everybody pay into health insurance in the first place

Montana - answer this - what were you drinking tonight?

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

I often wonder why so many doctors choose to go into specialty practices that emphasize elective surgery. You know plastic surgery, and the like.

Very few, if any insurance companies will cover elective surgery, yet those doctors do a nice, healthy practice. Is it because they care about the patients?

You said it: it's elective. If you don't have the money, you don't get plastic surgery. If you don't have the money to buy a car, you don't get a car.

But chances are you'll still need health care at one point in your life - even if you can't afford it.

Not really the point I was making. I was addressing the fact that many doctors specialize because that's where the money is. No dealing with insurance companies at all and they get a good paycheck as a result. There are far more doctors doing that now then 25 years ago and that could increase in the future thus creating a shortage of doctors willing to take insurance payments. Of course the interns will have to practice somewhere, right?

Quote:

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:

I also wonder if people like ebrown want health insurance to not only be socialized, but mandatory?

What, exactly, do you mean by "socialized health insurance?" Is that the same as universal health care?

I didn't say "socialized health insurance", I asked "if people like ebrown want health insurance to not only be socialized, but mandatory?"

Do you believe insurance should be mandatory if we switch from a private carrier insurance system?

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:

Will people HAVE to sign up for health insurance whether they want it or not? Will rich people be stuck paying more taxes to make up for the poor who can not afford to be taxed to pay for nationalized health insurance?

Well, you're already facing that dilemma. People can go to the emergency room, without having paid into health insurance. The resulting costs will be charged to other people who do pay into health insurance.

There are two solutions to this problem:

- don't treat people who don't have health insurance/don't pay for treatment at all
- make everybody pay into health insurance in the first place

No, the cost is paid by tax payers, not by people who pay for insurance.

Okie,

One problem with your point of view is that everyone needs health insurance.

In business there are "good" customers, and there are "bad" customers. You need to be very attentive to "good" customers... but customers who aren't so important to the business plan of the company can be ignored or dropped.

This is why in health care, we should be considered patients... not customers.

Customers are at a disadvantage when dealing with health insurance in several ways.

First, as soon as you get a long-term sickness you become a "bad" customer. This means that you are stuck with your current insurance provider (since no other company wants a sick "customer"). This also means that your insurance company doesn't need to treat you so well.

Second, when you are well... the insurance company is worried about making you "happy"... not about making you well. Everything they do will be about making more sales. This means that the popular decisions that will make a splash and look good in commercials will take place. This means that the things that they could do to improve general health... that don't look good on TV won't get done.

The best health care system will be run by people whose primary motivation is health-- not sales.

okie wrote:

I think it does work better, but I think it can be improved, not by abandoning the current system, but by tweaking it.

What do you base your opinion on? Have you been looking at data comparing different models?

First of all, employers should not pay for insurance or health care. There is no reason to make this a responsibility of employers. By doing this, employers become more competitive with foreign manufacturers and other good things happen.

First of all, employers should not pay for insurance or health care. There is no reason to make this a responsibility of employers. By doing this, employers become more competitive with foreign manufacturers and other good things happen.

Secondly, the people that can pay for health care through insurance can do it on their own, and for the people that are too poor, some kind of government assistance can be provided, which we already have, such as Medicaid.

Also, very attractive tax breaks need to be provided. But we need to make the system market responsive.

Tort reform is extremely important as well, which has been blocked by Democrats. No reason why a doctor should pay several hundred thousand per year in insurance premiums. This is simply passed onto the customer.

An important point relative to this is the pressure to be better insurance customers can make us more responsible drivers, more responsible homeowners, and more responsible healthwise, if we see the financial benefits to doing so. That is another benefit of the free market system.

I base my opinion on the fact that most people I know are pretty happy with the health care that they receive in the current system. I have doctor and nurse friends and relatives that have communicated their opinions and experiences.

I am interested in your statistics, but unless you are comparing apples to apples, your data doesn't mean as much as you might want to believe, in my opinion. No two cultures, countries, or populations are alike, and lifespans and other disease statistics have alot more to do with many many things other than health care systems in and of themselves. There can be drastic differences in lifestyle and tendencies among different populations.

I am interested in your statistics, but unless you are comparing apples to apples

What will happen to the thousands of people currently working for insurance companies? Will they be out of work? Will the government jobs require a civil service exam to work customer service? Will they pay employees as much as private insurance companies do?

Guess who's training U.S. doctors?

Thu, 07/26/2007 - 12:47pm.

American students who dream of being doctors often must take out enormous loans to pay for medical school. But eight American students from low-income backgrounds recently got their medical degrees without having to spend a penny. Through a deal between Cuban President Fidel Castro and members of the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus, they received six-year scholarships to attend Havana's Latin American Medical School, which is recognized by the World Health Organization. Cuba paid for the students' schooling, accommodations, textbooks, and uniforms.

It's a clever twist on what FP editor Moisés Naím terms "rogue aid," but it's just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of students from countries around the world attend the Latin American Medical School. Additionally, Cuba has sent tens of thousands of its doctors to developing countries over the years to provide medical assistance, writes Ignacio Ramonet in a recent FP debate with Carlos Alberto Montaner. The Cuban healthcare system was also recently cast in a positive light in Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, in which 9/11 rescue workers end up getting free medical care in Havana. (Though Moore's case for universal healthcare in the United States would probably have been stronger had he left Cuba out of the picture.)

Cuba's healthcare diplomacy reminds me of Hugo Chávez's efforts earlier this year to provide discounted heating oil to poor Americans, which haven't won the Venezuelan president any brownie points in the United States. Given how strong anti-Castro sentiment is here, it's doubtful Cuba's training of U.S. doctors will do much to win American hearts and minds, either.

I often wonder why so many doctors choose to go into specialty practices that emphasize elective surgery. You know plastic surgery, and the like.

Very few, if any insurance companies will cover elective surgery, yet those doctors do a nice, healthy practice. Is it because they care about the patients?

American students who dream of being doctors often must take out enormous loans to pay for medical school. But eight American students from low-income backgrounds recently got their medical degrees without having to spend a penny. Through a deal between Cuban President Fidel Castro and members of the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus, they received six-year scholarships to attend Havana's Latin American Medical School, which is recognized by the World Health Organization.